Thank you, Chair.
A lot of questions have been asked about why. If they're going to use it, why should we use it? There's a simple answer to that: It sends a signal. It sends a hard signal back to Russia that it doesn't matter what you do; we're not going to supply things to you.
It's symbolism going to Europe to say that we're supporting you guys, and we're supporting Ukraine by making sure that the waiver was revoked, so there's no chance you're ever going to get that turbine. It sends a signal to the company doing the refurbishing that the turbine has no value, so they can take it apart and throw it away or do whatever they want with it. Just do something with it, because we're not going to ship it. That's the symbolism it's going to send.
When you looked at the motion, why now? It's been waiting long enough. This motion has been on notice for quite a while; it's nothing new. This notice of motion has been in the committee probably for two or three weeks, so there's no surprise here that this was going to come up. In fact, it was talked about before, but then we said, “No, let's wait until we have Mr. Egan testify and then do it”, which is what has happened here today, so there's no surprise to the Liberal party or any of the other parties that this was going to come up today. It was clearly laid out in front of people that this would be coming forward.
This is something that I think really needs to be done. It's just another example of where we need to step up and do what we say we're going to do and show that we're going to back our words with action. In the midst of the study, the parliamentary secretary said that we had a study going on. There are things that are changing, but one thing we know is the right thing to do. You don't need to wait to finish a study to know when you're doing the right thing, and the right thing is revoking this waiver.
He says that we're grandstanding; I addressed that. We're not grandstanding. I asked about Gazprom, and when I asked about Gazprom and the type of gas going in there, what did he say? He said environmentally, Canadian gas would displace a much less environmentally friendly gas. He talked about methane being released in the fields in Russia and the impact that has for the global environment.
I asked about ESG, environmental social governance. You can look at the Canadian companies and see what they've done in ESG compared to a Russian company. I don't think there is any comparison. When you look at their allies in Europe, when their companies are looking at our gas and saying that they have to meet what their bankers, insurance companies and shareholders want in regard to ESG requirements, we can help meet those requirements and fulfill that need, not just in the short term but in the long term, because we've gone through that process. We've put in the regulatory process to do that.
What's really frustrating is when they've done all this work to meet these requirements and are told they can't take advantage of them here in Canada. What do they have to do? They have to go to Mexico or the U.S. to take advantage of all technologies they've developed here in Canada, because this government won't let them fulfill the ability to take this technology into the world marketplace.
You've heard that 18 years of gas are still going to be used in Germany, and that's just Germany. We're not talking about third world countries that are going to be using gas for maybe another 40 or 50 years. Where would you want to see this gas come from? Where do you want to see the wealth created? Do you want to see the wealth created in Russia, where it funds the military machine for further aggression within Europe and in Ukraine, or do you want this to come back into Canada and go to our health care system or schools or a variety of social services that we have here in Canada that we want and dearly feel we require?
You know those are things paid for by long projects such as natural gas, and energy security around the globe is one of the bargaining chips that Canada has on the international stage. We have gas, we have uranium and we have critical elements. We have things that the world wants. It's a strong bargaining chip and it allows us to influence Canada's agenda on the global stage, but when you tie the hands behind the backs of the people who are doing this, you're taking away those bargaining tools, those chips. You're not allowing Canada to fulfill its destiny or requirements within the world.
It sounds kind of silly that a simple motion like this would not go through relatively quickly. I think it should have just been bang, yes, let's get her done and move on. I don't even understand why we're debating it for another five minutes. It's just a no-brainer; it should happen.
If you tell me you're going to ship a turbine to Russia next week to a pipeline that's blown up, really, what do you care? You're not doing that, and you know that, so what do you care about the waiver? Just get rid of it, and let's move on to doing something else in this committee. We've eaten up committee time debating something that doesn't need to be debated.
I'll leave it there, Chair.